[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst. Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan. Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand? LOOK AT MY ASS! Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency Stealing JFK's Body Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda Biden's Missile Crisis British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon The Female Fantasy Exposed: Why Women Love Toxic Love Stories United States will NOT comply with the ICC arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu: Mississippi’s GDP Beats France: A Shocking Look at Economic Policy Failures (Per Capita)

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Why Do Republicans Hate Social Security?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Wh ... Bernie-Sanders-110922-509.html
Published: Sep 24, 2011
Author: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Do-
Post Date: 2011-09-24 14:38:00 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 345
Comments: 35

Why Do Republicans Hate Social Security? Add this Page to Facebook!

Become a Fan Become a Fan (45 fans) -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com AdChoices

Republicans hate Social Security because it has been an extraordinary success and has done exactly what it was designed to do. It is the most successful government program in our nation's history and is enormously popular.

When Social Security was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, that number is 10 percent -- still too high, but a testament to the success of Social Security.

Republicans have spent years demonizing Social Security and spreading lies about its sustainability. They want to scare Americans and build support for making drastic cuts to the program or privatizing it entirely. Their long-term goal is to end Social Security as we know it, and convert it into a private account system which will enable Wall Street to make hundreds of billions in profits.

The truth is that today, according to the Social Security Administration, Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years.

Further, because it is funded by the payroll tax and not the U.S. Treasury, Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit.

Now -- in a prolonged recession that has decimated the poor and middle class and pushed more Americans into poverty than at any point in modern history -- we need to strengthen Social Security. That's why I, along with nine co-sponsors, have introduced the "Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act." This legislation would lift the Social Security Payroll tax cap on all income over $250,000 a year, would require millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share into the Social Security Trust Fund, and would extend the program for the next 75 years.

For 76 years, through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American. The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the next 76 years is to scrap the payroll tax cap for those earning $250,000 a year or more.

Right now, someone who earns $106,800 pays the same amount of money into Social Security as billionaires like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That is because today, all income above $106,800 is exempt from the Social Security tax. As a result, 94% of Americans pay Social Security tax on all of their income, but the wealthiest 6% do not.

That makes no sense.

The "Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act" will ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security without cutting benefits, raising the retirement age or raising taxes on the middle class.

Social Security is keeping tens of millions of seniors out of poverty today. I can think of no more important issue facing our country today than making sure that Social Security remains strong for generations to come.

Join me and Democracy for America in fighting to strengthen Social Security -- Sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of the Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#7. To: tom007 (#0)

The truth is that today, according to the Social Security Administration, Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years

That's an outright lie. The money tax payers are forced to shell out for this ponzi scheme on a yearly basis is placed into the general fund and spent. There is no surplus. There are only IOU's which will be worthless if the economy tanks like many of the experts insist.

Social Security is keeping tens of millions of seniors out of poverty today. I can think of no more important issue facing our country today than making sure that Social Security remains strong for generations to come.

And these scumbag pieces of shit would enslave us all in order to take care of their worthless asses. I'm not responsible for the health and welfare of anyone other than the seniors in my family and those I CHOSE to help. Everyone else can fuck off, die, and rot in their shit for all I care. I ask nothing from them other than to be left the fuck alone. it's not unreasonable to expect the same from them.

It is an established fact that there are more baby boomers than there are gen Xer's, gen Yer's, etc. It's not a sustainable program. How much money will these maggots demand we give them as the worker per senior gets smaller and smaller?? The fuckers don't want to live at home with their children like it's been for time immemorial. They got in their head that they have a right to live independently. No, they don't. Not if they can only do it at the expense of my children and my own retirement.

I'm not a Republican but I hate Socialist Security because I am willing and able to get better returns on that money. I resent having it taken from me by threat of violence and used in a program that will not be there when it is time for me to retire and if by chance happens to be there will not even provide enough money for me to live on.

Social Security is nothing more than a way for the government to enslave a large group of people and make them dependent upon the government.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2011-09-24   15:17:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And these scumbag pieces of shit would enslave us all in order to take care of their worthless asses.

Who contributed from EVERY Pay Check their entire working life.

The problem with Social Security is not the general idea of a National Pension Fund ensuring enough for those no longer able to work to survive. The problem is that it has been MISMANAGED in a CRIMINAL manner by the corrupt fiduciary.

There is no reason for Social Security to be a problem except solely and only because of corruption.

The payroll withholding was increased to it's current level in 1990 because Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the foresight to attempt to ensure that it never became a problem.

So, basically what you are advocating is that the victims of a financial crime should just fucking die for your convenience.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24   16:59:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Who contributed from EVERY Pay Check their entire working life...

...So, basically what you are advocating is that the victims of a financial crime should just fucking die for your convenience.

That money is gone. In economics it is called a sunk cost. What more it is gone because it was spent on big government - big government that the American people demanded. Instead of focusing on sunk costs what you should be focusing on are the opportunity costs lost because of SS.

Yes, if seniors were so irresponsible that they relied solely on SS for their retirement then hell yes they can all just fucking die for my convenience. They should be relying on their children to take care of them and not using the power of government to rob me and my family for their convenience. And spare me this financial crime bullshit. Your claims of victimization makes you sound like a Jew. Politicians have been stealing from social security with the full knowledge and acceptance of the American people for many, many decades. It isn't a big secret. The American people decided that this was perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of their elected representatives and rewarded them and their party accordingly with reelection year after year, decade after decade. Claiming a financial crime after this amount of time is ludicrous.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2011-09-24   17:47:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, if seniors were so irresponsible that they relied solely on SS for their retirement then hell yes they can all just fucking die for my convenience. They should be relying on their children to take care of them and not using the power of government to rob me and my family for their convenience.

But they are NOT robbing you. The politicians who stole the money are robbing you.

As well many of the people who now rely on Social Security had pensions which were either stolen or mismanaged e.g., the employees of Enron.

In essence you are insisting that the victim of the crime suffer the consequences due the perpetrator of the crime.

You can try to wiggle around, but that is what it boils down to.

A contract was made between the government and beneficiary. That contract was not an option. Those workers who paid into it were required by law to pay into Social Security contingent upon an implied contract to pay out at a future date. In essence it was a forced Insurance Premium. The participants had no option, and no say in the matter.

The argument as to whether Social Security should be revamped or done away with is a separate argument.

Experience with what has happened should guide any such decision but ethically, and legally, per the laws of contracts, it should have NO bearing upon what is due current beneficiaries of the program. Sufficient monies were paid in, had they been soundly managed, to pay any benefits currently due.

And spare me this financial crime bullshit. Your claims of victimization makes you sound like a Jew. Politicians have been stealing from social security with the full knowledge and acceptance of the American people for many, many decades. It isn't a big secret.

Sticks and stones - etc., .... When you begin to rely on ad hominems it is a tacit admission that you know your argument is unsound. I think until recent times people did not give it much thought as they felt it was so secure as to be of no concern - other than when the cranks who don't like the program, usually financially secure, began trying to do away with a program they did not want to pay into.

I am not arguing that Social Security is a perfect program, but ensuring that the contract is kept with those who have paid into it, and rely on it, regardless of the heat and fulminations, is ethically sound.

The American people decided that this was perfectly acceptable behavior on the part of their elected representatives ...

And you know that how? References? You have stated a generalization as a universal. It is an unfounded assertion and thus logically invalid.

You can find people who were protesting the mismanagement going back into the 60's and 70's, and they were always reassured by their Congresscritters that all was well and that the contract would be kept.

While there is an argument to be made with either reforming or abolishing Social Security honor alone dictates that the contract be kept. And to a man of honor that is sufficient.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24   20:52:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

A contract was made between the government and beneficiary. That contract was not an option. Those workers who paid into it were required by law to pay into Social Security contingent upon an implied contract to pay out at a future date. In essence it was a forced Insurance Premium. The participants had no option, and no say in the matter.

Actually it is not a contract. The government can, and does, spend the money they take in on that Ponzi scheme for any purpose they choose as it all goes into the general fund.

www.supremelaw.org/ authors/mcdonald/vol1-8.htm

In the history of the United States of America, there is probably no more dramatic demonstration of deliberately designed misinformation than the literature put out by the Social Security Administration. One need go no further than three (3) decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court (two in 1937 and one in 1960) to realize what blatant deception the current Social Security literature contains. These cases are: Steward Machine v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937); and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960). These cases clearly enunciate the position of the Supreme Court on the Social Security Act and the actual legal position of those who expect to receive benefits from it. Highlights of these cases are as follows:

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool or trust fund, but:

"The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way."

[Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]

2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are simply income taxes:

"... eligibility for benefits ... (does) not in any true sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes."

[Flemming v. Davis, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960)]

3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer's right to do business. Consequently, his so-called "contributions" go directly into the general fund of the treasury.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even, though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amounts of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or gesture of charity. As the Court states:

"Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Act".

[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-11 (1960)]

In effect, Social Security benefits are not unlike pensions to be given or withheld at the discretion of Congress.

6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (a special kind of "employment/income tax") do nothing more than qualify him for consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do not guarantee him anything. They do not guarantee the amount to be received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or abolish the entire process at any time.

Justice Hugo L. Black, dissenting in the Nestor case, stated that the whole Social Security thesis, as expounded by the majority of the Court, is that the government is giving the participating citizen "something for nothing and Congress can stop doing so when it pleases." He further stated:

"I cannot believe that any private insurance in America would be permitted to repudiate its matured contracts with its policy-holders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the good faith of the company."

[Flemming v. Nestor, supra] [Justice Black dissenting]

It was only a short time after the Supreme Court had revealed that Social Security funds are:

"... paid into the Treasury like other internal revenue generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way ..."

and that the Social Security Administration went right ahead publishing literature fraudulently proclaiming that payroll deductions:

"... are strictly accounted for and kept separate from the general funds of the U.S. Treasury."

[Quoted by Warren Shore] [Social Security: The Fraud in Your Future] [The MacMillan Co., New York, 1975, Page 23]

Literature from the Social Security headquarters also continued to talk about its "insurance plan," and the "contributions" which are "pooled" in a "trust fund." All of this was deliberately misleading in view of the Supreme Court decisions cited above. Had a private insurance company so grossly misrepresented its position in this same manner, its officers probably would have been sent to jail.

Ever since 1935, the Social Security Administration has laid such great emphasis on its "trust fund", that the average citizen believes that his benefits are paid out of this "fund". The Administration knows this is NOT true since benefits are paid out of the general treasury. It therefore refers to its so-called trust fund as a "reserve of assets" to back up the Social Security program.

What this "reserve fund" amounts to is simply an accumulation of United States Bonds which wouldn't pay the liabilities of the system even if they were to be cashed in tomorrow. Furthermore, a government Bond is nothing more than a claim against the American people for taxes not yet collected. This is also true of the interest which must be paid on the bond. Neither the bond, nor the interest to be paid on it, constitutes an "asset" in any real sense of the term.

For a government agency to accumulate a quantity of government-owned bonds and call these a "reserve" of assets, is like a man writing himself a bundle of I.O.U.s and listing these as "assets" on his financial statement to the bank. People tend to think of a "trust fund" as more or less liquid funds which have an available cash flow if needed. The Social Security system has no such funds.

Unfortunately for some, and tragically for others, the words of Warren Shore describe the real situation:

"Obviously, there is no pool, just as there are no trust funds. Both words remain in the Social Security Lexicon not because they are true, but because they help to foster the public notion that Social Security is like insurance with its premium pools and trust funds regulated to support the promise made." [ibid., page 22]

Because ALL funds collected in the name of Social Security are never earmarked for any special use, they are intermingled with and spent each year like any other funds. This means that billions of dollars collected by the Social Security Administration in the early days of the program were used during 1935 to 1945 to help finance the military requirements of national defense incidental to World War II. Since the war, funds collected in the name Social Security have continued to be spent on all the miscellaneous appropriations of the government including foreign aid, salaries for nearly three (3) MILLION federal employees, and various regulatory agencies of government.

In recent years there has been considerable talk about the Social Security system becoming "insolvent" and getting close to "bankruptcy." The government itself is largely to blame for this misconception because it has used this line to justify the gigantic leap in Social Security taxes. They said these increases were absolutely necessary to keep the system "sound." At the same time, the Social Security Administration has been promising tremendous increases in "benefits" if the people would tolerate this new wave of increased taxes. In reality, what Congress really accomplished was to create more resources for the general fund of the treasury for political giveaway programs. The scare tactic of a "bankrupt" Social Security system has been immorally used against aging Americans to minimize resistance to the new tax gouging in the name of Social Security.

The main thing to keep in mind is that Social Security cannot go bankrupt, in the ordinary sense of the term, because it is able to depend upon the government power to raise revenue by compulsory means through taxes rather than a trust fund such as insurance companies are required to have. As long as the people will allow Congress to "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, the people are too damn dumb to understand" (according to the political formula of Harry L. Hopkins as administrative assistant to Franklin D. Roosevelt), Social Security will continue to be a runaway spending program.

The Social Security board of trustees emphasized the power to tax as a secret weapon in 1972 report to Congress by stating:

"Because compulsory social security insurance is assured of continuing income ... it does not have to build up the kind of reserves that are necessary at all times in an institution that cannot count on current income to meet obligations."

The Taxpayers Federation immediately issued a press release stating:

"It is now publicly acknowledged that all adherence to sound insurance practices have been abandoned. This single decision assured ever-mounting tax bills for the system without any possibility of relief. It is the ever-mounting tax bills which constitute the greatest threat to the Social Security system, and by 1980 that threat had become terribly real."

Fifty-eight years ago the Federal Government created the Social Security Program. In 1935 it was a new government program for American citizens. It did not then, and does not now include all citizens. Some groups, such as railroad workers, certain professionals such as doctors and lawyers, and also government employees (including members of Congress) are not members of the plan. Until just recently, certain religious groups also were not members of the program.

The government program for U.S. citizens' Social Security is literally called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, and is frequently abbreviated as FICA. As with some other government program names, the actual name is not totally correct and is somewhat misleading. The FICA program is not an insurance plan in the commonly accepted fashion, because there is no guarantee that the citizen will receive certain benefits. A private insurance policy must have protected and positive benefits for its members. The word "insurance" in "FICA" is not a correct description, as Congress has total control over the amount as well as the duration of all benefits. Collections or payments can be changed at the whim of Congress, which has been done from time to time.

The third word in the name, "contributions" is also deceptive and misleading. In the various FICA publications, the word "donation" is commonly used as a substitute for the term "contributions". Most dictionaries define these words to mean that something is voluntary, optional, and is NOT mandatory. The simple fact is that the FICA program is voluntary and optional.

No law has been passed requiring any State Citizen to enroll in, and/or subscribe to, the FICA program. Remember, classes of workers, such as government and railroad employees, are exempt from joining. There is strong influence and coercion to make everyone enroll in the FICA program, but there is no requirement that it must be done. Joining the program is voluntary, and the right not to enroll is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Described another way, a FICA number CANNOT be forced upon any State Citizen, but must be requested by you. Usually, a FICA number is requested and received when the State Citizen is legally a minor. There is a question of validity of such action as minors are not allowed to participate in contract, especially one that has a lifetime application.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-24   21:24:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

While I do not deny your references there IS an implied contract. That Congress has the authority and power to alter that contract upon a whim is also true. However, my argument hinges more upon the ethics and morality of the issue.

As your reference clearly states, by implication, the government, Congress and the Social Security Administration, are engaged in large scale widespread fraud. The true facts are misrepresented and most people have relied upon the government's misrepresentation. A point which I will also grant. That they should be brought up and sued for fraud is also true, and will never happen.

Most people in the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum do not read court decisions, but they may read Social Security Pamphlets. So, most are under the impression they must pay the FICA Tax and that Social Security is a guarantee as stated in its literature.

Again I deal in realities so far as real world problems go. An honorable man does not require a law to tell him to be honorable. Although grossly misrepresented we again return to the other basic argument: Who is the party guilty of wrongdoing? The person committing the fraud or the person defrauded?

As a group, as a society, we have allowed a situation to persist which has consequences if the implied commitment is not met. So, the real question is a moral one. Do we meet the commitment or just say "sorry sucker"?

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24   21:42:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

As a group, as a society, we have allowed a situation to persist which has consequences if the implied commitment is not met. So, the real question is a moral one. Do we meet the commitment or just say "sorry sucker"?

w(ho)tf is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? LOL! Just funning with you but I didn't promise anything such as the Congress/government has to anyone. Is it "our" fault they lied? Is it the fault of generations yet unborn what some crooks did in the 1930's? I think not. Again, I believe that the people who are now receiving ss should keep receiving them (except for illegal aliens of course). But it needs to be explained to younger people before they enter the work force that the country is broke and there is not going to be any such program as Socialist Insecurity for them, that it was a Ponzi scheme run by crooks and that it was going to be abolished in the near future. Having said that then you could tell them that the money they earn is theirs, all of it and that the government will make do with legitimate taxes which are authorized by the Constitution (which does not include the "income" tax for more than one reason).

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-24   22:08:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually to some extent it is our fault they got away with the lie. I am nobody's fool but Social Security is just one of those things I took for granted up until recent years - kind of like "death and taxes".

I think your solution is basically sound. Others have suggested that general type of solution. For whatever reason, Congress afraid to admit the truth among the reasons, and people's fears of being left destitute in their final years another the problem has largely remained ignored and shoved into a corner.

While the current system is not a good one I think there is a place for an optional participation national pension system if it was administered honestly and properly managed. Such a system could provide capital for loans for the younger generations engaged in their productive years and the earnings from those loans could, in part, support the system.

And yes the current system is broken, but only because CONgress allowed it and not enough people were aware enough of the facts to demand accountability. Our skool systems teach very damn little about finance and personal financial planning and teachers are so well taken care of that the problem is not real to them to begin with.

I think we can wholeheartedly agree on one thing - it is a f**king mess.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24   22:32:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Actually to some extent it is our fault they got away with the lie. I am nobody's fool but Social Security is just one of those things I took for granted up until recent years - kind of like "death and taxes".

I have been speaking out against that $#it and the misapplied "income" tax for about half my life I reckon (and I've been around a long time). I don't see how it is my fault that some old bastards two or three generations before I was born decided to screw people with a socialist Ponzi scheme. I won't accept the responsibility for that any more than I will for what slave traders and slavers did hundreds of years ago. None of that was my fault, why should I accept the blame for it?

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-24   22:36:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

None of that was my fault, why should I accept the blame for it?

I'm not saying "blame". I don't like playing the "blame game". My conception of responsibility though is perhaps a bit more expansive - as in we are responsible, each of us, for what goes on in our society - me no less than you. So, if one accepts total responsibility then we become responsible not just for ourselves but for the welfare of others. You can even expand that concept further which I won't do at the moment. ;-)

The point is that it is an interdependency call it what you wish, but responsibility at its most profound level requires taking responsibility for everything. One might say that is God's province, but it is no less ours even though we are not God. I am my brother's keeper, and my country's, and my planet's and most especially my kitty's.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24   22:44:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You have sho' 'nuff took on a heap of responsibility. "Good luck with all your future endeavors" as the WWE tells all the wrestlers whose services they no longer require.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-24   22:46:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#28. To: James Deffenbach (#27)

Yes, taking on a cat is a lot of responsibility - particularly at "Wet Food" time.

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-09-24 22:50:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]